Heathside Retirement Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected people’s current needs and were regularly reviewed. People and their relatives reported a high level of satisfaction with their care. Staff were trained and policies were in place to support person centred care. The home had regular and consistent staff. This made a huge difference to the care provided. People told us, ‘Staff are all good. They keep me up to date with my treatment and care needs and if anything changes, they will make a note on my care plan.’

Feedback from visiting professionals was very positive. They told us the standard of care was good and reported no concerns.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

The home worked really well with local GPs and District Nurses to ensure care was responsive to people’s needs. This worked well and their relatives reported a high level of satisfaction with the care provided. People told us, ‘The doctor comes once a week, but if you need them, they will come sooner. The staff arrange all my outside appointments too.’

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People who used the service, their families, friends, and carers were provided with information that it was accessible, safe and secure.

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded in their communication care plans.

People could access their records, and staff were trained to understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The management team were hands on, visible and available to people and their families. The open-door policy enabled issues to be dealt with quickly and informally.

A survey with families was completed in June 2024 and the feedback was mostly positive. Two formal complaints and 8 compliments had been received and recorded in the previous 12 months. We reviewed both complaints and they had been responded to promptly and resolved as far as possible. People told us they could raise concerns with the management, and they were quick to respond. They told us, ‘The mangers are very approachable. They are helpful and always try to sort out any problems’ and ‘The manager is very good. If I ask for anything it is always sorted out straight away.’

People had access to independent advocacy and received regular visits as a safeguard if they were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL). Referral were also made for other people if independent advocacy was required.

Regular resident’s meetings took place and were attended by families. The local commissioner from the local authority had also attended a recent meeting.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff had appropriate access to support for emergencies that occurred out of hours. Both the registered manager and the deputy manager were available 24 hours. The GP was also on call and the local District Nurses were available 24 hours.

The home was accessible and had adaptations to support people’s needs. A recent broadband upgrade, smart TVs and access to tablets and iPads also helped to reduce digital exclusion.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff received training in a range of courses designed to support their understanding of people’s rights. These included dignity in care, safeguarding and dementia awareness. Relatives were also invited and could attend training sessions with staff. Dignity and respect was an agenda item at both staff and residents meetings.

People and their families were involved in care plan reviews and were encouraged to read the care plans and to attend the Multi-disciplinary Team meetings. Independent advocates were offered and provided where people did not have family input or where residents/families felt they needed additional support.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

No one was being supported with end-of-life care at the time of the inspection.

Staff were trained in end-of-life care and people, and their families were given opportunities to plan for this if they chose to. The home had an end-of-life champion to ensure good practice was followed and staff were supported to meet people’s needs.